Populism in East Central Europe

1. The Dynamics of Populism in Slovakia and the Czech Republic Kevin Deegan-Krause Wayne State University Detroit, Michigan, USA

3. Populism in General: Definitions My Ally + Voters = Popul ar My Opponent + Voters = Popul ist

7. Populism in General: Definitions Programmatic Weak Institutions Strong Leader Organizational Moralistic Idiosyncratic Stylistic Against All Elites On Behalf of All people

14. Populism in General: Issue Divides Programmatic Weak Institutions Strong Leader Organizational Moralistic Idiosyncratic Stylistic Against All Elites On Behalf of All people Anti-elite program hard to sustain while in power

15. Populism in General: Issue Divides Programmatic Weak Institutions Strong Leader Organizational Moralistic Idiosyncratic Stylistic Against All Elites On Behalf of All people Anti-elite program hard to sustain while in power

29. Populism in Slovakia and the Czech Republic

30. Populism in SK and CZ: Assessment

31. Populism in SK and CZ: Assessment Programmatic Weak Institutions Strong Leader Organizational Moralistic Idiosyncratic Stylistic Against All Elites On Behalf of All people Framework

32. Populism in SK and CZ: Assessment Moralistic Against All Elites On Behalf of All people Idiosyncratic Stylistic Weak Institutions Strong Leader Organizational Programmatic Framework

33. Populism in SK and CZ: Assessment Moralistic Against All Elites On Behalf of All people Idiosyncratic Stylistic Weak Institutions Strong Leader Organizational Programmatic ZRS 1994 Score=18 or 100% SDL 1994 Score=12 or 50% Example

34. Populism in SK and CZ: (Tentative) Assessment

35. Populism in SK and CZ: (Tentative) Assessment Year Characteristic HZDS KDH DU SDK SDKU ANO SNS SDL ZRS SOP Smer KSS SMK 1992 strong leader 3 2 2 2 1 avoids constraining organization 2 2 2 1 2 places morality over pragmatism 3 3 2 2 3 offers idiosyncratic program 2 1 2 1 1 claims to represent "whole people" 3 1 3 3 2 attacks all elites 2 1 2 2 2 Sum 15 10 13 11 11 1994 strong leader 3 2 2 3 2 3 1 avoids constraining organization 1 1 2 2 1 3 1 places morality over pragmatism 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 offers idiosyncratic program 2 1 2 2 1 3 1 claims to represent "whole people" 3 1 2 3 3 3 2 attacks all elites 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 Sum 14 9 12 15 11 18 10 1998 strong leader 3 2 3 1 2 1 avoids constraining organization 1 2 2 3 3 1 places morality over pragmatism 2 2 3 2 2 3 offers idiosyncratic program 2 2 2 1 3 1 claims to represent "whole people" 3 2 3 2 3 2 attacks all elites 2 1 2 1 2 2 Sum 13 11 15 10 15 10 2002 strong leader 3 1 2 3 3 3 1 1 avoids constraining organization 2 1 2 3 3 3 2 1 places morality over pragmatism 2 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 offers idiosyncratic program 2 1 1 2 3 3 1 1 claims to represent "whole people" 2 1 2 3 3 3 2 2 attacks all elites 3 1 1 2 3 3 3 2 Sum 14 8 10 16 18 17 12 10 2006 strong leader 3 1 2 3 3 1 avoids constraining organization 2 1 2 2 2 1 places morality over pragmatism 1 3 2 3 2 3 offers idiosyncratic program 3 1 1 3 2 1 claims to represent "whole people" 2 1 2 3 3 2 attacks all elites 3 1 1 3 3 2 Sum 14 8 10 17 15 10

36. Populism in SK and CZ: (Tentative) Assessment

37. Populism in SK and CZ: (Tentative) Assessment Year Characteristic ODS ODA US SZ KDU- CSL CSSD KSCM LSU HSD- SMS SPR- RSC Dek. Od. 1992 strong leader 2 2 1 3 1 2 2 3 avoids constraining organization 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 3 places morality over pragmatism 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 3 offers idiosyncratic program 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 claims to represent "whole people" 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 3 attacks all elites 1 1 1 3 3 2 2 3 Sum 10 10 8 13 11 11 11 18 1996 strong leader 2 2 1 3 1 3 avoids constraining organization 1 2 1 1 1 3 places morality over pragmatism 2 2 3 2 3 3 offers idiosyncratic program 1 1 1 1 1 3 claims to represent "whole people" 2 2 1 3 2 3 attacks all elites 1 1 1 3 3 3 Sum 9 10 8 13 11 18 1998 strong leader 3 2 1 3 1 avoids constraining organization 2 2 1 1 1 places morality over pragmatism 2 2 3 2 3 offers idiosyncratic program 1 1 1 1 1 claims to represent "whole people" 2 2 1 2 2 attacks all elites 1 1 1 3 3 Sum 11 10 8 12 11 2002 strong leader 3 1 1 2 1 2 avoids constraining organization 2 2 1 1 1 3 places morality over pragmatism 2 2 3 2 3 3 offers idiosyncratic program 1 1 1 1 1 3 claims to represent "whole people" 2 2 1 2 2 3 attacks all elites 2 1 1 1 3 3 Sum 12 9 8 9 11 17 2006 strong leader 2 3 1 2 1 avoids constraining organization 2 2 1 1 1 places morality over pragmatism 2 3 3 2 3 offers idiosyncratic program 1 2 1 1 1 claims to represent "whole people" 2 2 1 3 2 attacks all elites 2 3 1 1 3 Sum 11 15 8 10 11

38. Populism in SK and CZ: Assessment

39. Populism in SK and CZ: Issue Divides

45. Departing members of Smer not more likely than continuing members to believe the same propositions Populism in SK and CZ: Issue Divides

49. Has Smer Routinized Populism? ZRS ANO Smer Time  Non-Routinized Populism Populism in SK and CZ: The Future

50. ZRS ANO Smer New Party or Parties Time  Non-Routinized Populism Has Smer Routinized Populism? Populism in SK and CZ: The Future

51. ZRS ANO Smer Routinized Populism Time  SOP Has Smer Routinized Populism? Populism in SK and CZ: The Future

52. All material used here availalable at www.pozorblog.com Kevin Deegan-Krause Wayne State University Detroit, Michigan, USA [email_address]